ANTT SIFAMA: Consultar Multas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint): it discloses that no platform credentials are needed, queries are paid via prepaid credits, data comes from official Brazilian sources and is not confidential, and the client bears data controller responsibilities under LGPD. These are useful behavioral traits that the annotations do not capture, though it does not elaborate on error handling or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, coherent paragraph and is not overly verbose. It front-loads the main purpose ('Consultar Multas') and includes relevant contextual details. However, it could be structured more clearly (e.g., separating usage context from legal disclaimers) but is generally efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what results the query returns, how to construct a valid request, or any prerequisites (e.g., login requirements). The annotations help with safety but not with usage completeness. The description omits essential details for a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not. It mentions 'tipo_fiscalizacao' and 'login_senha' implicitly but provides no explanation of any of the six parameters (e.g., placa, login_cpf, login_cnpj, cnpj_representado). The description gives no guidance on parameter formats, relationships, or required combinations, leaving the agent without essential information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Consultar Multas' (consult fines) from ANTT SIFAMA, an official source. It specifies the resource (fines) and the action (consult), and it distinguishes itself from the general sibling tools (authenticate, connect, etc.) by focusing on a specific data query. However, it could be more precise about the domain (e.g., 'traffic fines' vs. other types) and the exact scope of what it queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context (official source, prepaid payment, no platform credentials, LGPD responsibility) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. While siblings are unrelated, the description lacks direct guidance on when this tool is appropriate or not.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool can initiate a login link, accept a token for session-only auth, and that a permanent setup involves modifying server config. It clarifies the idempotent nature (calling with no args just returns a link) and that the operation is non-destructive. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description packs a lot of useful information into a single, somewhat dense sentence, but it is well-organized with colons and separators. It front-loads the target audience and quickly moves to actionable instructions. Every part contributes meaning, though the structure could be slightly cleaner for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and provides complete usage paths. It explains the difference between permanent and session authentication, which is important context. A minor gap is the lack of detail about response values or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, 'token', is not described in the schema, but the description compensates by explaining it is a JWT used for session-only login, and that it's optional (calling with no args is allowed). This provides enough semantic grounding for an agent to understand when and how to pass the token.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly explains the tool's purpose: to authenticate by either providing a token or returning a login link. It outlines two distinct usage modes (permanent config vs session token), which makes the function specific and easily understood. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as 'connect', so it misses out on full differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete usage instructions for different scenarios: adding a token to server config for permanent access, passing a token for session-only login, or calling with no arguments to receive a login link. It also provides a best-practice recommendation. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with alternatives, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) by explaining the conditional behavior: what is returned when all providers are connected versus when credentials are missing. This provides valuable transparency about the tool's operational nuances.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and behavior without redundancy. It is well-structured and straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully describes the return values in both relevant scenarios, including the specific fields (authenticated, pending, connect_url). Since there is no output schema, this textual description serves as the sole documentation of the return behavior and is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately does not add parameter-specific details, but since there are no parameters to document, this is adequate. A score of 4 reflects that no additional parameter explanation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns connection status and URLs, and specifies the two possible outcomes (all providers connected vs. missing credentials). This unambiguously defines its purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool—when needing to check connection status—but does not explicitly state it or contrast it with alternatives. For a simple no-parameter status tool, the implied usage is clear enough, though explicit guidance would be slightly better.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds important behavioral details: invoke works without installation, returns connect links for missing credentials, checkout links for empty wallets, and requires owner/admin for writes. It also explains the one-off nature of invoke versus install, and how the prompt library works.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but densely packed with necessary information, covering all sub-actions and their use cases. It front-loads the core flow but could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullets) to improve readibility; still, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the high complexity (23 parameters, 14 actions) and no output schema, the description covers all major actions, explains the search-describe-invoke workflow, notes credential and payment handling, and clarifies permissions. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of the 'action' enum values and how they map to parameters like mcp_id and tool_id. However, it does not detail other parameters such as limit, query, or cancel_reason, leaving some ambiguity for less central actions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is the official mcp.ai marketplace, serving as the catalog of MCPs and the means to run them. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on marketplace operations (search, describe, invoke, install) rather than auth or connectivity tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (capability requests, finding MCPs) and how to choose between actions (search→describe→invoke flow). It explicitly contrasts invoke vs install, recommending invoke for one-off usage and install for permanent additions, and mentions permissions for writes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations include idempotentHint=true, which indicates repeated calls may have the same effect. The description mentions the necessity to include conversation array for reproduction, which adds context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though it is a report tool, likely low risk) or what happens after submission. Given the annotations cover safety aspects, the description adds some value but not extensive behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, a single sentence of 20 words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes an instruction on usage (include conversation array). No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured if it mentioned parameter specifics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a feedback/report mechanism with 3 params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It tells the user what to do (report) and what to include (conversation array). However, it lacks details on the message format, what constitutes a well-formed report, and any expectations on feedback. For a simple tool, this might be adequate, but given the existence of a 'context' parameter, it could explicitly mention its purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions including the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction, which clarifies the 'conversation' parameter. However, it does not explain the 'message' or 'context' parameters beyond their obvious semantics. The baseline for a tool with 3 params and 0% coverage is 1-2, but the description does add some value by specifying the role of conversation. Still, it could be more explicit about what each parameter should contain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback. It specifies the action (report/send) and the resource (bug/feedback). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the conversation array for reproduction, which is unique among the listed siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools for general feedback or queries, nor does it specify any exclusions. The context is implied (when user wants to report an issue), but no explicit alternatives or conditions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent traits, which align with the description's 'show' action. The description adds no conflicting info, and no additional side effects are implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, succinct sentence without redundancy, effectively conveying the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple version-check tool, the description is complete; it states what it shows and implies the output. No additional context is necessary given the straightforward nature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema shows zero properties, so the description adds no parameter details. Given high schema coverage (100%), the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'show' and specifies the resource (MCP platform and adapter versions), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like authenticate or marketplace by focusing on version information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given its obvious read-only nature, it is self-explanatory. No usage context or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog counts), enriching the annotation-provided context. No side effects or edge behaviors are described, but none are needed given the read-only, idempotent nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that lists all key return components without any superfluous words. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately conveys the tool's value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully specifies what information is returned (installed MCPs, status, accounts, catalog tool counts). This is complete for an informational tool and leaves no gaps about its function or output.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (trivial). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. It doesn't add any parameter-specific details, but with no parameters, this is a non-issue. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states it returns the current toolkit state with specific components (installed MCPs, connection status, accounts, catalog tool counts). The verb 'Returns' plus resource 'toolkit state' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and marketplace, which focus on actions rather than introspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it - whenever you need a snapshot of the toolkit's MCP connections and their details. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternatives like marketplace or connect, but its informational nature is obvious from the context of sibling tools. No exclusions or when-not guidance is given, but the purpose is clear enough that a capable agent can infer appropriate usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.